3 ms·
The article is about the UK, but the HN headline has chopped that part out. In the US, your car is a far bigger impact than your diet. We need to enable ways
by epistasis 3y ago
The article is about the UK, but the HN headline has chopped that part out.
In the US, your car is a far bigger impact than your diet. We need to enable ways to live without a car, like legalizing corner stores, legalizing the housing density that allows for good transit, etc.
In the US, people who are trying to avoid climate action focus on diet rather than our true sources of emissions. And the US has the most action to take since we are such ridiculously high emitters.
If you want to change your diet, that's fantastic. But if you are in the US, you have far far bigger concerns to address first.
- 000ooo000 3y agoWhataboutism in its most pure form.
- mahatofu 3y agoNot to mention the report included 119 countries
- capitol_ 3y agoThis is interesting, do you know where I can look at the numbers for this? My gut feeling was that the realistic way to handle car emissions will be to migrate the global car pool to electrical, but I don't have any hard number to back this gut feeling with.
- burkaman 3y ago> In the US, people who are trying to avoid climate action focus on diet rather than our true sources of emissions. This is a surprising claim that requires evidence. I am very involved in climate action in the US and I've never seen this attitude from anyone. And of course, diet is a "true" source of emissions. There's an interesting study you could read if you're curious how that could be.
- ben_w 3y agoFixing America's transport emissions is necessary, but not sufficient. This is time for "yes, and" rather than "instead".